Read Time: 07 minutes
Having gone through the post mortem report and the doctor's deposition, the top court did not agree to the high court's findings that the trial court had conducted mini trial in the case, saying the case was conducted within four corners of its limited jurisdiction
The Supreme Court has on January 18, 2024 set aside the Madras High Court judgment which reversed an order of discharge by Additional District and Sessions Judge, Salem against an accused in a murder case as post mortem report showed no ante mortem injuries to the deceased.
A bench of Justices Abhay S Oka and Ujjal Bhuyan said that the high court's judgment could not be sustained as even after referring to the post-mortem certificate, it had completely ignored the doctor's evidence.
"The expert witness examined by the respondent, who admittedly carried out a post-mortem on the body of the deceased, has categorically stated that the death of the deceased was natural. This is coupled with the fact that there were no external injuries found on the body of the deceased," the court noted.
The court did not agree to the high court's findings that the trial court had conducted mini trial in the case, saying the case was conducted within four corners of its limited jurisdiction under Section 227 of the CrPC.
An appeal was filed before the top court by one Ramlingam and others, taking exception to the high court's order of December 20, 2018. The high court had allowed revision petition filed by the husband of the deceased against the discharge of the accused by the Additional District and Sessions Judge. The high court had remanded the matter for trial.
The FIR in the matter was filed by respondent N Viswanathan's father for death of his mother caused by the accused on October 9, 2004 after they attacked her over survey of a property.
The Investigating Officer filed a final report saying the death was due to natural causes.
Instead of a protest petition, the respondent's father, however, filed a complaint under Section 200 CrPC before the judicial magistrate who dismissed it after recording the doctor who conducted the post mortem. On a plea by the respondent's father, the high court set aside the magistrate's order, even without issuing notice to the appellants.
During the hearing before the apex court, the respondent's counsel submitted that the chemical examiner’s report and the histo-pathological report had not been received even till date, though the incident is of October 9, 2004.
Having gone through the doctor's deposition, the bench said, "The version of the respondent’s father who was examined as PW-1 is that one of the appellants hit the deceased with stick on her chest, and the other appellant repeatedly kicked her on her chest. In the post-mortem, no injury was found on the chest or any other part of the body of the deceased. Therefore, taking the evidence of the respondent’s father and other witnesses as it is, there was no material to proceed against the appellants in the private complaint filed by the respondent’s father".
Even according to the case of the respondent’s father, there was a dispute between him and the appellants over the property, and the incident occurred when, as per the order of the Civil Court, an attempt was made to survey the property through a government surveyor, the bench pointed out.
Case Title: Ramalingam & Ors Vs N Viswanathan
Please Login or Register
